Unbeliever (Kafir)

During court proceedings for the prosecution of Abu Bakar Ba’asyir as a terrorist suspect, the accused stridently branded President Susilo Bambang-Yudoyono a kafir (infidel). For Ba’asyir, a country under un-Islamic rule or that does not apply the Islamic syariah law must indisputably be under the leadership of a kafir. In Cirebon, suicide bomber Muhammad Syarif targeted at police officers by using the same justification of takfir (pronouncing others as infidels) as cited by Ba’asyir. A state that fails to adopt the syariah law is equivalent to a kafir government and all state apparatus are also consequentially infidels. Interestingly, Ba’asyir also considers Muhammad Syarif as a kafir for setting off the bomb in the mosque where Muslims were preparing to observe the Friday congregational prayer. If Muhammad Syarif had survived the explosion, he would probably also name Ba’asyir an infidel for not endorsing his attack against non-believers who were about to perform their prayer.

According to a number of observers on terrorism and former terrorists, acts of terrorism targeting other Muslims are not entirely surprising. The takfiriyyah doctrine (judging others as infidels) is one of the theological foundations adhered to by terrorists. Their grand ambition is to establish an Islamic state. Any obstruction to the attainment of this goal becomes part of infidelism that must be fought against. They are convinced that Muslims who support a system other than the Islamic approach are proponents of infidelism, thus are also classified as kafirs.

This piece of writing intends to put forth several fundamental inaccuracies on this tradition of pronouncing others as kafirs which has led to rampant acts of violence. First, concerns the usage of the word ‘kafir’. Defining kafir as a person outside of Islam is in fact inconsistent with the actual meaning of the word ‘kafir’ itself. Kafir means to cover or deny, hence it refers to the covering or denying of God’s blessings. In English, the word ‘infidel’ is often used to translate kafir, when in fact a more appropriate translation is to cover. Hence, the reason why Christians and Jews are simple known as ahl kitab (people of the Book) during the times of the Prophet. The concept of infidel as understood by the West is actually an unfamiliar term in Islam’s traditional doctrine.

Such erroneous definition of kafir is manifested in subsequent implications of violence and even killings once a person or group is branded kafir. This evidently shows that the kafir label is used to excommunicate a person or group from a community, which in this case is the Muslim society. Kafir is equivalent to being a person outside of Islam and as such should be treated as an enemy. This is an erroneous perception that Muslims themselves continue to hold on to.

Second, Abu Bakar Ba’asyir, Muhammad Syarif and cohorts have often intentionally ignored the key principles on how a person can be called a Muslim. These are indeed clear-cut principles embodied in the five pillars of Islam (arkaanul Islam), namely the declaration of faith, the five daily prayers, fasting, alms-giving and the pilgrimage to Mecca for those who can afford to do so. As long as a person observes these five core principles, he or she is therefore a Muslim. There has never been a valid doctrine in Islam that mentions the establishment of an Islamic state as one of the pillars of Islam.

Imam Al-Ghazali, dubbed Hujjatul Islam or the Proof of Islam was the author of the book Faishal al-Tafrîqah bayna al-Islam wa al-Zandaqah. According to Ulil Abshar-Abdalla, this book was written within the context of the widespread practice of singling out others as infidels among the Muslim society of the 11th century. It was then a time conducive for the emergence of new ideas which incited debate while at the same brought forth the tradition of naming others as kafirs which threatened the integrity of the Muslim society. The situation was probably not much different from Indonesia today where the ability to exercise the right to the freedom of opinion has also allowed room for the practice of branding others as infidels which impedes national unity and integrity. Al-Ghazali seeks to enlighten that pronouncing others to be outside of Islam is indeed not as simple. Al-Ghazali’s interpretation is that a believer is a person who believes in the Prophet and all his teachings. A zindiq (heretic) is a person who does not believe in the Prophet and his teachings.

The question then is what are the teachings of the Prophet? Every person will have his own interpretation which can be poles apart from each other’s way of thinking. To answer this question, al-Ghazali has formulated the concept of qãnūn al-ta’wîl (interpretation guidelines). Al-Ghazali presents five levels of existence: wujūd al-zãti (ontological-existential), wujūd al-khishshi (experiential), wujud al-khayali (conceptual based on previous experience), wujūd al-aqli (rational reasoning), and wujūd al-syibhi (metaphorical). Differences in interpretation arise due to varying points of departure of the interpreter. The interpretation of those at the level of wujūd al-syibhi shall undoubtedly be different from those at the wujūd al-zãti level. According to Ulil Abshar-Abdalla when speaking at a religious study gathering during the fasting month of Ramadhan, Al-Ghazali wanted to assert that the criteria of truth cannot be dictated by a single perspective. Differences of standpoint on a doctrine hinges on how a person views the doctrine, on whether he understands it in a denotative or metaphorical manner.

Third, if the purpose of Ba’asyir and his cohorts in denouncing others as infidels is to glorify Islam, then they are in fact doing a disservice to Islam. Islam which has spread far and wide has been confined only to Ba’asyir and like-minded people.

Fourth, concerns the erroneous perception on the implications of being labeled an infidel. Once a person is stamped kafir, it is as if violence meted out against him or even killing the person becomes permissible. This is indeed an extremely fatal mistake as there is no justification in Islam to support acts of violence or killing against other people outside of Islam. Such misguided understanding can damage relationships among fellow human beings.

The path to destruction shall become inevitable when increasingly more people perceive differences as reason for obscuring each other. There are many other facets that one can benefit from this reality of diversity, instead of using it as a passage towards destruction. Differences are the most significant means for cooperation and mutual learning. Without the existence of others, how can we be meaningful?